on Jun 10, 2011 at 3:10 pm
In Sykes, in which the Court held that fleeing the police in a car constitutes a â€œviolent felonyâ€ for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, Justice Scaliaâ€™s dissent from what he characterizes as the â€œtutti-fruttiâ€ majority opinion has drawn substantial attention. At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler describes Scalia as having â€œchastise[d] his colleagues for continuing a futile effort to bring clarity to what constitutes a â€˜violent felonyâ€™ under the Armed Career Criminal Act.â€ At the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss highlights Justice Scaliaâ€™s concerns about writing criminal law with vague standards: â€œFuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty gritty.â€ Andrew Cohen, at the Atlantic, lauds Justice Scalia as â€œmy new best friend, at least for this weekâ€ for his ability to call out Congress â€œas only he can do.â€
At the New York Times, Adam Liptak summarizes the decision in Sykes more generally.Â Additional coverage of the case comes from Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times (via the San Francisco Chronicle), CNN, and Courthouse News Service. For RedState, Dan McLaughlin covers not only yesterdayâ€™s decision in Sykes, but also the Courtâ€™s decisions in DePierre and Talk America.
At the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Ashby Jones sums up the Courtâ€™s message for Microsoft in Microsoft v. i4i pretty succinctly: â€œYou got a problem with this, take it up with Congress, not us.â€ â€œA contrary decision would have upended the way patent law has been practiced for decades and would have set off a mad scramble to rewrite the law in Congress,â€ explains Nina Totenberg at National Public Radio.Â And Richard Waters at the Financial Times describes the case as a â€œlightning rod in the US for the issue of whether rich companies were being held hostage by opportunistic â€˜patent trolls.â€™â€ At the Huffington Post, Daniel B. Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation, discusses the decision in the context of legislation currently pending in Congress that would change patent law from a â€œfirst to inventâ€ to a â€œfirst to fileâ€ system.Â Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press (via Forbes), the Engineer, Reuters, Bloomberg News (via Boston Globe), InfoWorld, and PC Pro all have additional coverage of the i4i decision.
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler discusses the â€œconcernsâ€ expressed by Justice Scalia in his Talk America v. Michigan Bell concurrence with regard to Auer deference, a doctrine whereby courts defer to agenciesâ€™ interpretations of their own regulations.Â At the Weekly Standard, Adam J. White notes that although Justice Scalia â€œopens the door to a future case in which the Court may be asked to reconsider the entire Auer doctrine,â€ he concedes that â€œthe odds of succeeding in such a challenge are, of course, daunting: after all, none of Scalia’s colleagues joined his opinion.â€Â Â More coverage of the case can be found at Bloomberg, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Courthouse News Service, and Investors Business Daily.
- Both Courthouse News Service and UPI have coverage of yesterdayâ€™s decision in DePierre v. United States, in which the Court held that the term â€œcocaine baseâ€ includes all cocaine in a chemically basic form, not just crack cocaine.
- At the Volokh Conspiracy, John Elwood takes a look at how patent law has fared over the last term.